Enter a comma-separated list of keywords or phrases that best describe this object to make it more accessible during searches. Please check your spelling.

Label:

Early sources suggest that the great Renaissance painter Masaccio worked out the sophisticated perspective of the temple. The design is based, in part, on the plan for the dome of the cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence.

The haloes of Christ and the apostles contain an emblem with the Greek letters for Christ’s name, a symbol Bernardino of Siena promoted for religious devotion. He preached sermons in Florence in 1425 and 1426, and this lightweight canvas painting may relate to that visit.

Explore the Collections

Italian Paintings 1250-1450

The scene takes place in an open building with a multifaceted dome meant to represent the temple in Jerusalem (see Giovanni di Paolo, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Johnson Collection cat. 105). To the left Judas, identified by a dark blue halo, accepts thirty pieces of silver from the elders to betray Christ (Matthew 26:14-15). 1 To the right Christ, surrounded by a group of apostles, performs a miracle by raising his hand toward two figures on the street outside, where a man clad only in underpants kneels over a child in red.

Although the Gospels do not record that Christ performed such a miracle in the temple, Matthew 17:14-20 does describe how a man brought his lunatic son to Christ for healing after none of his disciples had been able to cure him. The verses that immediately follow (22-23) would explain the combination of the miracle with Judas's betrayal: "Jesus said to them: The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again." The passage (verses 23-26) further recounts the story of the tribute money, or tax, that Christ and the apostles had to pay, which Masaccio depicted in the murals of the Brancacci chapel in the mid-1420s.2 The grouping of Christ and the apostles in the Johnson painting reflects the arrangement of the central group in the tribute money scene. The seminude man kneeling in the foreground is also derived from a figure in Masaccio's Apostle Peter Baptizing the Neophytes in the same chapel.3

As first noted by Roberto Longhi (1927, p. 65; 1940, p. 161), the combination of the scenes of Judas receiving blood money and Christ healing the lunatic occurs in a nearly contemporary silver plaque (see Paris, Musée du Louvre, Département des Objets d'art), often attributed to Filippo Brunelleschi, though recently it has been proposed that it was designed by Leon Battista Alberti, about 1439-42.4 There the two scenes are set in a city square in front of idealized antique and modern architecture. Clear correspondences between figures in the plaque and in Masaccio's paintings in the Brancacci chapel can also be found. In addition, as Paul Joannides (1993, p. 467) observed, the apostle seen from behind in the far right of the Johnson Collection's painting is the same-but reversed-as the apostle in the front right of the silver plaque.

Attribution:
William Blundell Spence's identification of the Johnson painting as the work by Masaccio described by Vasari in 1550 as being in the house of Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio was supported by August Schmarsow (1895-99, 1928a), Wilhelm R. Valentiner (letter to Johnson, dated New York, May 16, 1911), Herbert Horne (letter to Johnson, dated Florence, June 9, 1911), and Frank Jewett Mather (letter to Johnson, dated Princeton, May 22, 1913; letter to Henri G. Marceau, dated Washington's Crossing, May 4, 1942; and his article of 1944). The auction catalogues of the Somzée (1904) and Sedelmeyer (1907) collections simply attributed the picture to Masaccio. Bernhard Berenson (1913, pp. 12, 14) was much more cautious, suggesting that it was an "imitation of or possibly a copy after a lost work." However, Berenson had trouble even with the idea that the picture was a copy, and wrote that "if it were a copy after Masaccio [it] would thus suggest questions regarding him not easy to answer. . . . Perhaps however, the problems here suggested have no real existence, for it is more than likely that Vasari was mistaken in ascribing to Masaccio the design which probably is the creation of his imitator Andrea di Giusto."

In Berenson's lists (1932, 1936, 1963) the picture appeared as the work of Andrea di Giusto. Jacques Mesnil (1927), Mario Salmi (1932; 1948), Longhi (1940), Alessandro Parronchi (1966), and Luciano Berti (1964 and in Berti and Paolucci 1990) all concurred but recognized the possibility that Masaccio had had a hand in the design. Shell (1965) attributed the execution to Francesco d'Antonio and suggested that it was a copy from about 1430 after a lost original. He, however, felt that the design should be attributed to Masolino rather than Masaccio.

Shell's attribution of the figures to Francesco d'Antonio was accepted by Beck (1977), who, however, believed that the painting was essentially designed by Masaccio, and Joannides (1993), who, like Shell, thought that Masolino was most likely responsible for its conception. The most telling comparison with Francesco d'Antonio's known work is perhaps with the figures in his predella to the Rinieri altarpiece of about 1426-30 (see Avignon, Musée du Petit Palais, no. M.I.475). Furthermore, although Francesco is recorded as being associated with Masolino on three occasions, this does not exclude the possibility that he worked with Masaccio on the Johnson painting.

The Perspective:
The perspective of the painting has been the object of much study. Parronchi (1959, fig. 3; 1964) demonstrated that the orthogonals receded to two vanishing points at the far ends of the horizon line, which he noted was the scheme Brunelleschi used to paint a perspectival rendering of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. The date of Brunelleschi's lost painting is much debated,5 but the most likely period is 1424-25, when he was involved in the construction of the cupola of the city's cathedral and made a painting of the baptistery from the main entrance of the cathedral.

Shell (1965, p. 466 and fig. 3), while acknowledging the perspectival qualities of the Johnson picture, sought to demonstrate that Francesco d'Antonio's perspective was much more haphazard than Brunelleschi's and that the orthogonals did not merge on two precise vanishing points. However, careful examination of the principal orthogonals shows that they do converge on two vanishing points, although the artist did have trouble with some of the details, and the projection of the perspective can at best be called simplistic and imprecise (see Layout of the perspective of Philadelphia Museum of Art, Johnson Collection cat. 17 executed by Irma Passeri). For instance, orthogonals that do not run along a continuous straightedge (such as the capitals of the piers) do not in every case converge on the vanishing points. In addition, the rounded shapes and the arches were drawn with a compass as arcs of a circle and not in proper recession. The arches of the first and second bays of the left aisle are of equal size, with only the third bay adjusted in size to account for its recession in space. The piers and columns likewise fall in uneven spacing as they recede. Nevertheless, Francesco d'Antonio achieved a convincing sense of rational space by carefully hiding some of the inconsistencies with figure groups. For example, the pier before which Christ and the apostles stand has been pushed back and out of line with the others.

The Architecture:
The architecture of the Johnson canvas, while admittedly eclectic, is decidedly Brunelleschian. The cupola, the arched gallery surrounding its base, and the lantern resemble Brunelleschi's project for the cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, which was under construction at the time that this painting was executed, probably sometime between 1424 and 1429. Brunelleschi had first presented his plan in 1417. In 1418-19, together with Nanni di Banco and Donatello, he built a large brick model with painted and gilded wood detailing and displayed it outside the cathedral next to the bell tower. There were other models as well,6 and the project was officially approved in July 1420. While most of the models were destroyed, elements of some of them may survive in part in a model in the Museo dell'Opera del Duomo (see Florence, Museo dell'Opera del Duomo). An earlier model of the whole church, including the then-proposed cupola, made in 1367 by Giovanni di Lapo Ghini according to the specifications of a special artists' committee, was kept in the nave of the cathedral. This model was reflected in a mural of 1367-68 by Andrea di Bonaiuto in the Spanish chapel in the convent of Santa Maria Novella in Florence.7 Likewise, the Johnson painting seems to present Brunelleschi's plan as it would have appeared in the brick and wood model of 1418-19 and during the cupola's initial phase of construction.

Brunelleschi's model of 1418-19 probably showed the design for the lantern and ballatoio, or walkway, at its base. On July 20, 1420, Brunelleschi and other members of the commission appointed to oversee the construction of the cupola drew up an elaborate statement in which the project is described in detail, with particular attention given to the exterior gallery around the drum.8 The Johnson painting shows the ballatoio plan as described by Brunelleschi and others in 1420: a covered ambulatory with arched openings supported on a console and another walkway above. This ambulatory, however, was never executed.9 Curiously, in the painting the occhi, or circular windows, at the base of the cupola are not depicted at all. The same is true of the earlier mural by Andrea di Bonaiuto. Although in a 1364 plan occhi were conceived for the side aisles,10 no definitive decision had been made concerning their placement on the drum. The occhi were added between 1410 and 1413, before any final decision had been made about the design of the cupola.11 Brunelleschi's famous model of 1418-19 seemingly only represented the cupola, so it may not have included the occhi.12

As construction of the dome was nearing completion, Brunelleschi's design for the lantern of the cathedral was changed in 1432. In fact, earlier models of it were ordered to be destroyed, and Brunelleschi was hired to create a new one. The Johnson painting reflects the older design and follows the simple trecento project seen in Andrea di Bonaiuto's mural. As can be surmised from the mural and the Johnson painting, Brunelleschi's first design was most likely derived from the mid-twelfth-century lantern on the baptistery of Florence.13

Other details of the architecture reflect Brunelleschian ideas. The window on the far left of the tribune resembles the typically Gothic windows of the fourteenth-century cathedral, but with the addition of a Renaissance frame with a triangular pediment. The horizontal windows in the clerestory have similar frames, perhaps suggesting that Brunelleschi planned to update the style of the cathedral's existing construction. The modernity of the painting's architecture is most apparent in the two-storied central nave, defined by columns supporting an architrave. In the upper story squared pilasters continue the vertical thrust of the columns. In general, the structure reflects a knowledge-undoubtedly derived from Brunelleschi-of Roman early Christian basilican architecture, and particularly, as August Schmarsow (1928a, p. 121) noted, Old Saint Peter's and Saint John Lateran.

Joannides (1993, p. 467) suggested that the painting's architecture expresses a Ghibertian interpretation of Brunelleschian ideas. He related it to buildings in Ghiberti's reliefs for the first set of bronze doors for the Florentine baptistery, which were unveiled on Easter Sunday 1424: the slender piers on the temple's exterior are indeed very close to those in Ghiberti's Christ among the Doctors;14 columns supporting an architrave are found in his Flagellation;15 and Gothic and antique elements are nicely combined in his Last Supper.16

While the architecture of the Johnson canvas is at most eclectic, it is the earliest surviving example of interest in architectural views as an independent subject for painting, which only begins to be recorded in the mid-fifteenth century.17 However, a number of trecento compositions inform the basic design. The representation of a large, open, cathedral-like building seen principally from the side, like the one in the Johnson painting, occurs in Taddeo Gaddi's Presentation of the Virgin in the Baroncelli chapel in Santa Croce, executed in the 1330s.18 Miklós Boskovits (quoted in Beck 1977, p. 52) also noted that the temple in the Johnson picture is similar to the cathedral of Pisa in Antonio Veneziano's mural the Death of Saint Ranieri and the Translation of His Corpse (see Pitture a fresco del Campo Santo di Pisa disegnate e incise [Florence, 1832]) of 1384-86 in the Camposanto in Pisa. Christine Smith (in Millon and Magnago Lampugnani 1994, p. 459) observed that the painter of the Johnson canvas would have known Stefano Fiorentino's now-lost lunette mural in the cloister of the Florentine convent of Santo Spirito, where another scene of Christ removing a demon from a possessed person is staged in a complex architectural setting. In 1568 Vasari wrote that Stefano Fiorentino had

rendered a building in perfect perspective, in a manner then hardly known, with good form and better knowledge in recession. And in this [mural] he worked in a modern manner and with the greatest judgment. He showed such art and invention and proportion in the columns, doors, windows, and frames, and a way that was so different from other masters, that it seemed that one began to discern the light of the good and perfect manner of the moderns.19

The "Curing of the Lunatic" and Brunelleschi:
The interest in the scene of the curing of the lunatic enjoyed a revival in Florence during the 1420s. The near-contemporary silver plaque (see Paris, Musée du Louvre, Département des Objets d'art), for example, shows a similar vignette and is also set in an idealized architecture that somewhat reflects Brunelleschi's plans for the Florentine basilica of San Lorenzo.20 Smith (in Millon and Magnago Lampugnani 1994, p. 459) suggested that the choice of the scene in Johnson's painting may have been related to the doubts being expressed in Florence in the 1420s over whether the cupola could be built. According to the Gospel account of the story, after Christ healed the boy, the apostles asked why they could not cast out the demon. Jesus responded: "Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you" (Matthew 17:19). Thus the Francesco d'Antonio may have been made in response to the criticisms Brunelleschi faced regarding the cupola in 1425-26, especially from his most virulent critic, Giovanni di Gherardo Gherardi.21 At about the same time Gherardi and Brunelleschi exchanged accusatory sonnets about each other.22

The "Curing of the Lunatic" and Saint Bernardino:
Berti (1964, p. 144 n. 228) noted that the halos of Christ and the apostles are incised with the insignia of Saint Bernardino of Siena, which contains the symbol of the Name of Jesus he invented as a new devotion and frequently used in his sermons. Bernardino preached in Florence in Santa Croce between March 8 and May 3, 1424, and again between February 4 and April 18, 1425; he later returned for a brief period in late July and early August 1427.23 Furthermore, in the 1480s Vespasiano da Bisticci (Greco ed. 1970-76, vol. 1, p. 250) notes that the saint also preached some very popular sermons in the cathedral, after which he visited the house of the humanist Giannozzo Manetti. Exactly when Bernardino preached in the cathedral is unknown, but it could have occurred during his short visit of 1427 or even during one of his visits to Santa Croce.

The biblical miracle in the painting might refer to incidents that took place in nearby Prato. On June 12, 1424, Bernardino is said to have cured a madwoman by showing her the cross and a tablet painted with the symbol of the Name of Jesus. A witness described the miracle and noted that there were "one hundred Florentine citizens present, who had never seen such an event."24 During this same time, at the Porta Santa Trinità in Prato, a young man named Cosimo di Niccolò Lorenzi fell unconscious after having been hit by a bull. Bernardino knelt next to him and prayed until the youth stood up and walked.25 Both of these episodes were later cited as miracles in the acts of the saint's canonization.26

Whether the choice of the subject of Christ healing the lunatic relates to Bernardino's extraordinary experience in Prato cannot be determined, but certainly the presence of his insignia on the halos suggests that the painting was at least produced around the time of one of his Florentine sojourns. The use of the lightweight canvas might mean that it was carried in procession during the ceremonies surrounding one of his sermons, which were extremely popular and emotional events. In Florence on one occasion his preaching in Santa Croce was interrupted by a crowd who wanted him to come out of the church to light a bonfire of vanities.27 He was invited back to preach in 1426, most probably by Leonardo Bruni, chancellor of the Republic of Florence.28 He did not return, however, until 1427.

In Rome during the spring of 142729 Bernardino was investigated for the orthodoxy of his cult of the Name of Jesus but was eventually exonerated. Many of the initial attacks concerning his cult had been made in Florence in 1424 by his bitter enemy, the Dominican Manfredo da Vercelli. Two letters written by the humanist Ambrogio Traversari, a monk at the Florentine convent of Santa Maria degli Angeli, show how closely Bernardino's trial was followed and with what joy his exoneration was greeted in the city. 30 The presence of the symbol on the halos in this picture thus might have been a response to attacks on the Name of Jesus, just as the architecture may have been an answer to the doubts about Brunelleschi's program for the cathedral's cupola.

Commission and Function:
It is not clear who would have commissioned a picture such as this. Few paintings on canvas survive from before the late fifteenth century, and of those that do there is little, if no, documentation as to their use. However, there are contemporary canvas processional banners made for lay confraternities. A canvas by Spinello Aretino seems to have been made around 1375 for a brotherhood in Borgo San Sepolcro.31 It was painted on both sides, making it particularly appropriate for use in a procession. Another canvas, showing the Decapitation of Saint John the Baptist, by a mid-trecento Florentine artist,32 now in the Museo dell'Opera del Duomo of Florence, might have been a processional banner, although there is no record of its specific use. In the Florence cathedral there was also an altar complex that included a painting on canvas.33 After the canonization of Saint Bernardino in 1450, several canvas banners were made celebrating the occasion.34 In addition, his preaching in the squares of Italy inspired several artists to paint scenes of these events.35

The detail of the Johnson painting and especially its careful study of buildings and perspective would suggest that its use as a processional banner was rather limited, for its images would not have been readable at much distance. The artist may have used canvas instead of panel because he viewed the painting as an experiment in working out problems of representing buildings in perspective. However, the careful choice of the biblical text, especially as it might relate to criticism concerning Brunelleschi's cupola, and the presence of Bernardino's insignia on the halos would indicate that the painting was in fact prepared for or in response to a specific event. Carl Brandon Strehlke, from Italian paintings, 1250-1450, in the John G. Johnson Collection and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2004, pp. 134-143.